Should Aerys had replaced the Kingsguard who remained in tower of Joy

[Mister Smikes]

29 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Interesting.  You see the vow that Gerold references as part of the original vows he took when he was first sworn in as a Kingsguard.  As opposed to a subsequent vow he would have made in direct response to an order given to him from the King.

Yes, I think that's the only reading.  "'We swore a vow', explained old Ser Gerold."  This is not some new thought - he is explaining what he and Ser Arthur just said, which was "... The Kingsguard does not flee .... Then or now."   He is explaining why the Kingsguard does not flee.  Hence, the vow that he refers to can only be that vow that is common to the Kingsguard.

29 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So I assume that the first five vows are vows specifically tailored to the vows he took as a Kingsguard.  Defend.  Obey.  Keep secrets.  Do bidding. Your life for his.  

There are also indications that the oath includes defending the king's family.  Remember Jaime's dilemma, that he swore to protect Rhaella, but not from Aerys.  

29 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Since Gerold and company did a pretty piss poor job in defending the king, or in defending his named heir, then I suggest that the vow that Gerold is referring to is of the obey category.

More likely, it's the "defend with your life" category.  Otherwise, "We swore a vow" would not explain "The Kingsguard does not flee".

It is is hard to judge their job as "piss poor", based on what we know.  If King Tommen gets assassinated while Balon Swann is in Dorne trying to retrieve Myrcella, will that mean he did a "piss poor" job?

 

[Corvus Black]

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

You probably should argue that point, because it’s the one assertion I made that’s not backed up by any text.  But if Aerys is able to summon Rhaegar than Aerys knows where Rhaegar is.  Otherwise it’s a fairly laughable scenario where Aerys tells Gerold to ride around Westeros until he finds Rhaegar.

I did argue that point. This somehow confused you so I cleared up the confusion. You still haven't countered my point that Aerys sent Gerold to "find" Rheagar though. He could have a rough idea of where he was, which would reduce the search grid significantly, but he didn't know where Rhaegar was for a fact.

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Please cite your source for that.  Per Jaime Lannister, hanging out in his hot tub:

ASOS, chapter 37. The same source you cited.

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

So the sequence of events told by Jaime seems pretty clear.  Aerys sent Lewyn to take command of the Dornish host, Darry and Selmy sere sent to gather the Stoney Sept troops, and Rhaegar returned from the “south”.  Now the narrator of this bit of info may be a bit suspect, since he was fairly delirious at the time, so I’m more than willing to listen to a more reliable narrator.

We interpret the sequence of events differently. To me it reads that the three events occur concurrently, and we know that since Rhaegar is heading the royal army which Lewyn's forces will meet up with then they must leave from King's Landing at the same time. 

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I’ll let you in on a secret.  None of the information we learn in the books is told through an omniscient narrator.  If there is a source that claims to be from an omniscient narrator, then disregard it, because Martin specifically wishes his story to be told through  a subjective POV format where some of the info we get may not always be terribly reliable.  

It seems you missed my point. You said to stick to the books and then used AWOIAF which is a non-book source, and you stated the information as if it was a fact which is why I said it's not an in-universe omniscient author.

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Once again, the Kingsguard have more duties than just protecting the king.  That’s the fallacy that you’re falling for.  You are assuming that the presence of the Kingsguard means they are protecting a king.  The Kingsguard’s primary duty is to obey the commands from the king.  If the Kingsguard directly receives a command from someone other than the king, and they appear comfortable that they are doing their sworn duties as a Kingsguard in fulfilling that duty, then rest assured they believe the command was at the very least authorized by the king.

I'll answer this below.

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

See above.  You’re making my argument for me.  The Kingsguard tells Ned that they were acting in the performance of their duties by not being at King’s Landing, by not being at the Trident, and by not being at Dragonstone with Viserys.

Which can mean only one thing.  That they swore a vow for King Aerys (whether or not it was directly from the mouth of Aerys to them) and they had not yet accomplished the vow.  

And Eddard makes it very clear that he has come to put an end to it.

The assumption you are making is that the Kingsguard took a vow to protect someone.  But Kingsguards are more than bodyguards.  

This interview with GRRM should clear things up for you: https://alt.fan.grrm.narkive.com/RWKOYyvZ/insightful-grrm-interview 

Specifically this part:

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned
at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family
members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They
serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're
also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a
certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that
order, we'll do something else."

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

And while you seem to have a problem with the Worldbook, you may want to check with Ran, but I believe that the chapters of the False Spring, Robert’s Rebellion & the End were directly written by GRRM.

I don't have a problem with AWOIAF. I was mocking you because you said to stick to the books and then used a non-book source.

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

And it was in Robert’s Rebellion where we learn that:

I'll answer this below.

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

So while this may be hearsay info given to us by an imperfect narrator, it shows once again, that not only do we not have any evidence that Aerys thought the Kingsguard three had deserted him, we are in fact given evidence to the opposite.  That these three Kingsguards were some of the last people Aerys still trusted.

This supports my interpretation of ASOS, chapter 37.

No, it does not support your claim that he still trusted them.

3 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

When we do, let's remember that we know very little about what happened at the TOJ.  It is virtually impossible to discuss that situation without making unproven assumptions.

It seems like you missed my point too. He said to stick to the books and then used AWOIAF which is a non-book source, and stated the information as if it was a fact which is why I said it's not an in-universe omniscient author.

3 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

I think you mis-spelled "implicitly".  It is spelled with an "im", not an "ex".

No. I used the word I intended. They specifically name dropped Viserys.

3 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

The Kingsguard serve for life.  Context suggests they are referring to their Kingsguard oath, not some new oath we must infer.

I'll answer this below.

3 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

They seem to think they are honoring their oath.  It is odd to take this as evidence they are breaking their oath.  

This interview with GRRM should clear things up for you: https://alt.fan.grrm.narkive.com/RWKOYyvZ/insightful-grrm-interview 

Specifically this part:

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned
at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family
members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They
serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're
also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a
certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that
order, we'll do something else."

3 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

We know so little about the ToJ.  How many months, exactly, has Aerys been dead?  Aerys is not their king any more, that's for sure.  Viserys might be their king, but that is debatable and based on assumptions.    Do the Kingsguard believe that the declared whim of a dead former King takes precedence over established rules of succession.

They knew Aerys was dead and that he named Viserys as his heir. They also knew that both of Rhaegar's children by his legal wife, Elia, are dead. With this knowledge only Viserys is the new king.

[Mister Smikes]

8 hours ago, Corvus Black said:

This interview with GRRM should clear things up for you: https://alt.fan.grrm.narkive.com/RWKOYyvZ/insightful-grrm-interview 

Specifically this part:

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned
at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family
members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They
serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're
also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a
certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that
order, we'll do something else."

An evasive answer to a spoiler-directed question which, as you would expect, tells us nothing we do not already know -- that kingsguard do not merely protect, but also follow orders.  "... IF Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order ...".  That's a hypothetical statement, not a direct one.  He does not reference any oaths and does not say what oath Ser Gerold was referring to.

In any event, the kingsguard would not need to make a separate oath to Rhaegar to obey an order given by Rhaegar.  If a kingsguard were assigned to Rhaegar, who is after all the king's family, they would obey his orders.

Quote

They knew Aerys was dead and that he named Viserys as his heir.

I'm not sure they knew he named Viserys as his heir, nor do I know they would have cared if he did.  Established rules of succession exist for a reason.  One does not want wars fought over what a king allegedly said on his deathbed, or in the days or weeks preceeding his death.  When the old king is dead you don't have to obey him any more.  You obey the new king.  And the established rules of succession tell you who the new king is.

Quote

They also knew that both of Rhaegar's children by his legal wife, Elia, are dead.

I'm not sure that both Rhaegar's children were dead.  I'm also unsure about what the 3 Kingsguard members knew or thought they knew about it.  I have doubts about to what extent Targaryen polygamy can be deemed legal, given the historical precedent of Aegon and his 2 sister-wives.

Quote

With this knowledge only Viserys is the new king.

Even if he is, he is 1000 miles away on an island.   If Tommen is assassinated while Swann is 1000 miles away in Dorne, then Swann was just following orders.  But if Myrcella is attacked in Swann's presence while he is in Dorne, and Swann runs away and saves himself leaving her to die, then Swann will have broken his vow to protect the king's family with his life.

[Frey family reunion]

10 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

Yes, I think that's the only reading.  "'We swore a vow', explained old Ser Gerold."  This is not some new thought - he is explaining what he and Ser Arthur just said, which was "... The Kingsguard does not flee .... Then or now."   He is explaining why the Kingsguard does not flee.  Hence, the vow that he refers to can only be that vow that is common to the Kingsguard.

Very possible.  It still begs the question which vow he's referencing.  The other possible interpretation that I had was once the Kingsguards' swore a vow, they were obligated to see it through.  And if that vow meant they were to be at the tower of joy, then at the tower of joy they were going to stay, and see through whatever it was they vowed to do.

10 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

There are also indications that the oath includes defending the king's family.  Remember Jaime's dilemma, that he swore to protect Rhaella, but not from Aerys.  

That's not really a tough dilemma for a Kingsguard though.  Because it seems fairly straightforward.  Their responsibilities are first and foremost to obey and protect the King.  Everyone else is secondary.

Now if the King orders them away from him so they can guard his heir or his wife, or whoever, then I think the Kingsguard's duty would take them from the King based on that order.

But if there isn't an explicit order, I would assume that the Kingsguards would not knowingly abandon their duties to the king to guard a member of the royal family.

We can see this dynamic a bit with Prince Joffrey.  Before he became King, he wasn't guarded by one of the Kingsguard because presumably, Tywin and/or Cersei probably wouldn't be comfortable in having his person guarded by someone who's primary loyalty lay with someone else.

Thus, the Hound was chosen, someone who's primary as opposed to secondary duty would be to guard Joffrey.

10 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

More likely, it's the "defend with your life" category.  Otherwise, "We swore a vow" would not explain "The Kingsguard does not flee".

It is is hard to judge their job as "piss poor", based on what we know.  If King Tommen gets assassinated while Balon Swann is in Dorne trying to retrieve Myrcella, will that mean he did a "piss poor" job?

The defend with your life category dealt with guarding the king with their life.  At least that was their duty as a kingsguard.  Now their duty as a knight would be to protect the helpless, ect. ect.  But they seem to be specifically referencing their Kingsguard duty.

Now I know that the common suspicion is that baby Jon lay  in the cradle, the new King of the Land because of the deaths of Aerys/Rhaegar/Aegon.  And the Kingsguards would have implicitly crowned him by diverting their loyalty and attention to him.  I personally don't buy this, but regardless, let's say that it's true.

It still doesn't explain why they were so content with the fact that they were good little Kingsguards before the birth of baby King Jon.  When Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were alive.  They weren't protecting them, and they weren't fighting the Usurper who was looking to take down the whole kingdom.  So clearly they weren't defending anyone with their life.  At least not anyone they were supposed to at the time.

Unless of course Aerys commanded them otherwise.  Then their vow falls under the "obey the king" category, "no matter what".  

Now I agree that it seems unlikely that Aerys would have had ordered them to protect Lyanna and her unborn child with their lives.  And if Rhaegar had given the order and they knew that Aerys would not have approved, I don't think they would have so smugly thought of themselves as good little Kingsguard soldiers.  Good knights maybe, but not good Kingsguards.

And I still come back to the fact that there is no evidence that paranoid, suspicious Aerys appeared to believe that they deserted him.  But instead the evidence suggests the opposite.  

Quote

"As for Lord Rickard, the steel of his breastplate turned cherry-red before the end, and his gold melted off his spurs and dripped down into the fire.  I stood at the foot of the Iron Throne in my white armor and white cloak, filling my head with thoughts of Cersei.  After, Gerold Hightower himself took me aside and said to me, 'You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.'  That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree."

So if there was any thought that Gerold Hightower had deserted Aerys, then the one person who would be aware of that is Jaime Lannister, the one person who was with Aerys up until his bitter end.  But instead Jaime seems to think that Gerold Hightower met his end remaining loyal to the monstrous King.

I think it's clear that the Kingsguard's presence at Rhaegar's "tower of joy" and Rhaegar's apparent return from Dorne suggests that Rhaegar and these three Kingsguards were up to something in Dorne.  

But I also think that the evidence suggests that not only was Aerys aware of that fact, he was in favor of it.  Hence the Kingsguards still performing their duty even though they were far away from King's Landing, and the Trident.

[Frey family reunion]

41 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

If King Tommen gets assassinated while Balon Swann is in Dorne trying to retrieve Myrcella, will that mean he did a "piss poor" job

No, but we as readers know the context.  Swann was ordered by either the Hand or the Queen regent to go guard Myrcella.  Since they are speaking for the King based on his age, than Swann is certainly doing his job.  

But once again Swann is falling under the provision of “obey the king”.  Only in this case it’s “obey the persons speaking for the king” because of Tommen’s age.  

If Aerys didn’t order the Kingsguards to go protect Lyanna, but they decided on their own to do it, leaving Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon unprotected, then yes they are doing a piss poor job of being Kingsguards.  

[Mister Smikes]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Very possible.  It still begs the question which vow he's referencing.  The other possible interpretation that I had was once the Kingsguards' swore a vow, they were obligated to see it through.  And if that vow meant they were to be at the tower of joy, then at the tower of joy they were going to stay, and see through whatever it was they vowed to do.

You seem to back-handed concede that the vow referred to by Gerold must relate to the Kingsguard.  But you want it to be some secondary vow, not their original Kingsguard vow. 

That's too convoluted for me.  If a man does not already believe he ought to keep his solemn vows, there is no point having him take Kingsguard vows in the first place.  If Kingsguard members are more likely to keep vows than ordinary people it is because honorable men are picked for the job, and not because the Kingsguard vows magically turn appointees into honorable men who keeps their vows.  

I think he was referring directly to the original Kingsguard vows they all took when they joined the Kingsguard.

 

[Mister Smikes]

41 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

No, but we as readers know the context.  Swann was ordered by either the Hand or the Queen regent to go guard Myrcella.  Since they are speaking for the King based on his age, than Swann is certainly doing his job.  

The only difference I see is that, for the 3 Kingsguard at the ToJ, we don't know the context.  But they seem to think they are doing their job.  Since we don't know the context, we hardly have any basis to disagree with him.

41 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

But once again Swann is falling under the provision of “obey the king”.  Only in this case it’s “obey the persons speaking for the king” because of Tommen’s age.  

Viserys' name keeps being brought up.  Assuming he is the rightful king (which is dubious) he is also under age.

41 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

If Aerys didn’t order the Kingsguards to go protect Lyanna, but they decided on their own to do it, leaving Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon unprotected, then yes they are doing a piss poor job of being Kingsguards.  

Months have passed since the deaths of Rhaegar and Aerys, and maybe Aegon too.  We don't know where they were or what they were doing at the time.  Aegon may have survived and been smuggled out of KL, and if he is alive, who knows where he might be.  Maybe at the Tower of Joy for all I know.

[Frey family reunion]

29 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

You seem to back-handed concede that the vow referred to by Gerold must relate to the Kingsguard.  But you want it to be some secondary vow, not their original Kingsguard vow. 

That's too convoluted for me.  If a man does not already believe he ought to keep his solemn vows, there is no point having him take Kingsguard vows in the first place.  If Kingsguard members are more likely to keep vows than ordinary people it is because honorable men are picked for the job, and not because the Kingsguard vows magically turn appointees into honorable men who keeps their vows.  

I think he was referring directly to the original Kingsguard vows they all took when they joined the Kingsguard.

 

I think the issue is I'm not really sure.  I think they may very well be referring to their original vows, but if they are, then the only thing that seems to make sense, is that they are referring to their vow to obey their King.  Because before Aerys/Rhaegar/and Aegon were killed, they simply were not engaged in their other primary vow which would be to defend the King or even defend his recognized heirs.  

If they did swear a more recent, additional vow, regarding a specific purpose or order, then it could not be one that contravened one of their initial Kingsguard vows, but perhaps was something that gave their general vow of obeying the king's order more clarification.

So you very well may be correct that they are referring to one of their initial vows.  I'm not really sure it makes a difference in my analysis.  And the only conclusion that I have based on the evidence we currently have, is that before the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon they were undertaking an order from their King.  Which goes back to the initial premise of this thread.  Why Aerys didn't replace them?  He didn't replace them because they were doing his bidding.

[Frey family reunion]

6 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

The only difference I see is that, for the 3 Kingsguard at the ToJ, we don't know the context.  But they seem to think they are doing their job.  Since we don't know the context, we hardly have any basis to disagree with him.

Viserys' name keeps being brought up.  Assuming he is the rightful king (which is dubious) he is also under age.

Months have passed since the deaths of Rhaegar and Aerys, and maybe Aegon too.  We don't know where they were or what they were doing at the time.  Aegon may have survived and been smuggled out of KL, and if he is alive, who knows where he might be.  Maybe at the Tower of Joy for all I know.

The problem is you're only focusing on the events as they existed at the time of the tower of joy battle.  That doesn't explain the Kingsguards absence from Aerys and from fighting the war.  Which is the issue brought up in the thread.  

The reason I brought up the conversation at the tower of joy, is that the conversation didn't just focus on what they were doing then and there.  The conversation also covered the fact that they weren't with the King, or with Rhaegar at the Trident, or with Dragonstone with the new King.  And the Kingsguards' answers seemed to indicate that they were still good  Kingsguards and still loyal to the Targaryen crown, and were throughout.  Up until the end.

So what were they up to before we got to the events of the tower of joy?  And why did Eddard apparently decide he needed to put an end to it?

[Lord Varys]

Folks joining the KG do not just swear a vow to the king as an institution. They swear a personal vow to the king in office whose KG they are joining. And whenever a king dies his court and government and whoever else attends his formal coronation do swear new vows of fealty to the new king.

This includes the KG, as can be seen best during the Dance of the Dragons. Steffon Darklyn left Aegon II and joined Rhaenyra on Dragonstone before Aegon's coronation. Had he attended that he would have bound himself to the new king and he would have betrayed him ... which he didn't by leaving before Aegon was made into a king. Those new vows wouldn't be sworn as solemny or with the same gravitas as the vows a knight swears when he first joins the Kingsguard, but that doesn't change the fact that Selmy would have sworn personal vows to Jaehaerys II, Aerys II, and Robert Baratheon. If that didn't happen then there would be no real bond between a king and his Kingsguard. A knight does have to acknowledge that a new king is actually his king. That he accepts the new monarch as his monarch. Else this wouldn't be a chivalric order but a bureaucratic institution - and that's not the case.

In the same manner a king also has to take the Kingsguard into his service. The king could easily enough disband the order upon his ascension, dismiss the knights in question from his service, etc. - this didn't happen formally until Cersei dismissed Barristan, but the Targaryen history shows us that execution and the Wall were the chosen ways of kings who weren't happy with the KG they inherited from their predecessors to get rid of them. Renly also set another precedent with his Rainbow Guard - which had different rules than the KG. He wouldn't have continued the Joffrey's KG had he won the Iron Throne. And Stannis doesn't have a KG altogether.

We can also take a closer look at Barristan Selmy and Jaime Lannister - they both would have sworn their allegiance to the new king, Robert Baratheon, as part of Robert's decision to pardon them and keep them in his KG. Another great example would be Jaehaerys I not permitting any of Maegor's Kingsguard to continue protecting him. They all had to go because they were the false KG of a false king, basically.

You can best illustrate this when there is an usurpation or civil war ... but with a peaceful succession there also can be issues, just think about Daeron II following Aegon IV. Even if Daeron II didn't send any of his father's KG to the Wall - which I certainly could see happening if some of them were as corrupt as Aegon himself - he would have taken steps to ensure that those men knew they were bound to him now, personally, and not just to the kingship as an abstract institution ... or even the memory of the old king, Aegon IV.

 

[Frey family reunion]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Folks joining the KG do not just swear a vow to the king as an institution. They swear a personal vow to the king in office whose KG they are joining. And whenever a king dies his court and government and whoever else attends his formal coronation do swear new vows of fealty to the new king.

And that’s my point.  Whatever the Kingsguards were doing during the Trident, and the Sack they were following one of the vows they gave to King Aerys.

So either at the time of the toj there was a secret coronation of a new king, where they swore new vows, or any vows they referred to before they battled Eddard Stark also referenced the vows they made to King Aerys.

[Mister Smikes]

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Folks joining the KG do not just swear a vow to the king as an institution. They swear a personal vow to the king in office whose KG they are joining. And whenever a king dies his court and government and whoever else attends his formal coronation do swear new vows of fealty to the new king.

The kingsguard serves for life, and therefore swears a vow to the king as an institution, regardless of what else they may swear.  Their vows do not lapse between the death of the last king and the coronation of the next one.  And it is plausible that the laws of succession are relevant to how they interpret their duties.  That's all I'm saying.

[Mister Smikes]

39 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

The problem is you're only focusing on the events as they existed at the time of the tower of joy battle. 

I'm focusing on both, and saying we don't know enough about either, to question their own assessment of themselves that they were loyal men.

39 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

That doesn't explain the Kingsguards absence from Aerys and from fighting the war. 

Their absence from Aerys is quickly addressed.  Like Balon Swann, it is possible for them to be elsewhere, and still be loyal.  They cannot fly like superman to Aery's rescue the instant they receive a text-alert that he is in danger, and will not be judged by such standards.  As for the details, we will have to wait until GRRM reveals them to us.

As for their being "absent from fighting the war", that remains to be seen.  And they did end up falling in combat against the forces of the Usurper.

39 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

The conversation also covered the fact that they weren't with the King, or with Rhaegar at the Trident, or with Dragonstone with the new King.  And the Kingsguards' answers seemed to indicate that they were still good  Kingsguards and still loyal to the Targaryen crown, and were throughout.  

That's what I take from it.  Just what they said.  Except Viserys is never referred to as "the new king" in their conversation.

39 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So what were they up to before we got to the events of the tower of joy? 

I guess GRRM will tell us the whole story some day.

39 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

And why did Eddard apparently decide he needed to put an end to it?

King's men vs. Usurper's men?  But again, we may have to wait for details.

[John Suburbs]

On 5/17/2021 at 4:34 PM, Mrstrategy said:

Should Aerys had replaced the Kingsguard who remained in tower of Joy for not being at the trident or guardian him and instead remained in a a unknown location to Aerys and charge them with desertion?

IT depends on whether they were at the ToJ on Aerys' orders or not.

[Corvus Black]

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

I'm not sure that both Rhaegar's children were dead.  I'm also unsure about what the 3 Kingsguard members knew or thought they knew about it.  I have doubts about to what extent Targaryen polygamy can be deemed legal, given the historical precedent of Aegon and his 2 sister-wives.

There are only 3 polygamous Targaryens in their 400+ year history, and two of them did it in Valyria where it is legal. It was even noted that it was unusual for them to take two wives.

The one time it happened in Westeros the septon at Dragonstone would not marry Maegor and Alys Harroway, and when the High Septon heard that Visenya had married them he denounced the marriage as sin and called Alys "Maegor's whore". The rest of Westeros quickly followed suit. Maegor was then exiled from Westeros when he didn't accept the decision.

Polygamy is not accepted in Westeros. 

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

Even if he is, he is 1000 miles away on an island.   If Tommen is assassinated while Swann is 1000 miles away in Dorne, then Swann was just following orders.  But if Myrcella is attacked in Swann's presence while he is in Dorne, and Swann runs away and saves himself leaving her to die, then Swann will have broken his vow to protect the king's family with his life.

Which begs the question: Why couldn't they leave the Tower of Joy? 

[Mister Smikes]

29 minutes ago, Corvus Black said:

There are only 3 polygamous Targaryens in their 400+ year history, and two of them did it in Valyria where it is legal. It was even noted that it was unusual for them to take two wives.

The one time it happened in Westeros the septon at Dragonstone would not marry Maegor and Alys Harroway, and when the High Septon heard that Visenya had married them he denounced the marriage as sin and called Alys "Maegor's whore". The rest of Westeros quickly followed suit. Maegor was then exiled from Westeros when he didn't accept the decision.

Polygamy is not accepted in Westeros. 

Well, I am more-or-less on the side of the High Septon, but I'm not sure GRRM is.  Maybe the next High Septon will be more "enlightened".  I guess we are just going to have to wait and see whether Rhaegar is able to get away with it this time (assuming anything of the sort is going on).  Or maybe he got his first marriage secretly annulled on some excuse.   Or maybe Rhaegar got Aerys to legitimize his bastard offspring with Lyanna.   Lots of questions.  Few answers.

Quote

Which begs the question: Why couldn't they leave the Tower of Joy? 

My guess is they were sacrificing their lives to defend the king's family (if not the king himself).  Maybe Baby Aegon was present.  And/or maybe any child (children?) born to Lyanna don't have to be legitimate to count as family of the king and worthy of kingsguard protection.

[Corvus Black]

3 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Well, I am more-or-less on the side of the High Septon, but I'm not sure GRRM is.  Maybe the next High Septon will be more "enlightened".  I guess we are just going to have to wait and see whether Rhaegar is able to get away with it this time (assuming anything of the sort is going on).  Or maybe he got his first marriage secretly annulled on some excuse.   Or maybe Rhaegar got Aerys to legitimize his bastard offspring with Lyanna.   Lots of questions.  Few answers.

Since the High Septon of Aerys's time made him do a walk of penance for cheating on Rhaella I'm going to go ahead and say he's firmly against polygamy too.

5 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

My guess is they were sacrificing their lives to defend the king's family (if not the king himself).  Maybe Baby Aegon was present.  And maybe any child (children?) born to Lyanna don't have to be legitimate to count as family of the king and worthy of kingsguard protection.

Then why fight Ned? Why not explain the circumstances of why they are there guarding Lyanna?

Surely they don't think Ned will kill his own sister.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

And that’s my point.  Whatever the Kingsguards were doing during the Trident, and the Sack they were following one of the vows they gave to King Aerys.

So either at the time of the toj there was a secret coronation of a new king, where they swore new vows, or any vows they referred to before they battled Eddard Stark also referenced the vows they made to King Aerys.

That doesn't have to be the case. They could have sworn a new specific vow or made a specific promise to somebody from the royal family. The best alternative to Aerys II there would be Rhaegar.

In the end their overall commitment to 'things connected to House Targaryen' would be their original Kingsguard affiliation, but it is entirely possible that them being at the tower had to do with a very specific mission.

Sort of like Rickard Thorne and Willis Fell agreed to protect the children of Aegon II.

[Mister Smikes]

2 minutes ago, Corvus Black said:

Since the High Septon of Aerys's time made him do a walk of penance for cheating on Rhaella I'm going to go ahead and say he's firmly against polygamy too.

Well, against adultery at least.

Anyhow, the question of whether polygamous marriages are sinful may be a different matter than whether the offspring of polygamous marriages may in some cases count for purposes of the line of succession.  Do not kings claim the right to legitimize bastards?  A High Septon who stands firm on "thou shalt not commit adultery" might demur on the question of whether the offspring of a union he considers sinful may be forgiven for a crime he never committed anyway, and stand in the line of succession.  Legitimacy is not really a religious question, but a secular question.   

2 minutes ago, Corvus Black said:

Then why fight Ned? Why not explain the circumstances of why they are there guarding Lyanna?

I'm not there standing in their shoes and thinking what they are thinking.  I am happy to wait for GRRM's explanation.

2 minutes ago, Corvus Black said:

Surely they don't think Ned will kill his own sister.

Who knows?  Or maybe they think he will spare his sister and kill the child or children.  Or maybe they think he will not do the deed himself, but deliver the child to Robert Baratheon, who has already semi-endorsed the murder of Targ children.  And maybe Baby Aegon is present.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

The kingsguard serves for life, and therefore swears a vow to the king as an institution, regardless of what else they may swear.  Their vows do not lapse between the death of the last king and the coronation of the next one.  And it is plausible that the laws of succession are relevant to how they interpret their duties.  That's all I'm saying.

There aren't any binding laws regulating the succession of the Iron Throne. And even if there were - there is no indication that the Kingsguard are sworn to uphold or follow such hypothetical succession laws.

And as Cersei points out it was apparently never specified whether 'serving for life' means the life of the Kingsguard in question or the life of the king.

Insofar as the death of a king is concerned - the interregnum between the death of a monarch and coronation/proclamation of a new monarch is always a 'lawless period', a time of great institutional uncertainty. And the installation of a new king is dependent on his subjects recognizing and acknowledging him as the new ruler - foremost among them the men who are supposed to serve as the king's bodyguards.

As I said, the KG have to make up their mind if the new king is actually the new king (they want to serve) just as the new king has to decide whether he wants a Kingsguard or not.